Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 128 (3.37 seconds)
Documents citing L.K. Advani vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 1 April, 1997

Y.R. Crafts vs Rakesh Kilam on 30 March, 2024

In this regard, the Ld. Counsel has placed reliance upon L. K. Advani vs. CBI, supra. Lastly, it was argued that the alleged confession letter dated 14.02.2016 of the Accused has not been duly proved as neither any expert was examined in this regard nor has CW-1 proved the signature of the Accused person. Moreover, it was argued that the said letter bears one more signature of one person at the bottom Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA YADAV Page no.20 of 31 YADAV Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Y.R. Crafts vs Rakesh Kilam on 30 March, 2024

In this regard, the Ld. Counsel has placed reliance upon L. K. Advani vs. CBI, supra. Lastly, it was argued that the alleged confession letter dated 14.02.2016 of the Accused has not been duly proved as neither any expert was examined in this regard nor has CW-1 proved the signature of the Accused person. Moreover, it was argued that the said letter bears one more signature of one person at the bottom Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA YADAV YADAV Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Y.R. Crafts vs Rakesh Kilam on 30 March, 2024

In this regard, the Ld. Counsel has placed reliance upon L. K. Advani vs. CBI, supra. Lastly, it was argued that the alleged confession letter dated 14.02.2016 of the Accused has not been duly proved as neither any expert was examined in this regard nor has CW-1 proved the signature of the Accused person. Moreover, it was argued that the said letter bears one more signature of one person at the bottom right of the page and the said person has also not been examined. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA YADAV YADAV Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

"C. Evidence Act vs . on 1 February, 2021

344. The reliance upon judgment of Sharad Yadav vs. Union of India 1999 (41) DRJ, L.K. Advani vs. CBI 1997 (41) DRJ, Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 as well as on Subramaniam Swami vs. A. Raja (2012) 9 SCC 257, wherein it is held that even strong R/CC No. 199/2019 CBI vs. Neeraj Khatri & ors. Page 146 of 264 suspicion cannot replace proof, is inconsequential and not applicable to the present case as the witnesses involved in preparation and handing over the demand draft have clearly and cogently stated mode of demand and payment since PW25 through PW18 had got the draft prepared and had also personally handed it over to A­1. This hence belies the argument raised by ld defence counsels that no witness involved in preparation of DD has witnessed the demand.
Delhi District Court Cites 168 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Complainant vs . Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 Scc ... on 9 November, 2021

I. DEFENCE THAT THERE IS NO EXISTING LEGAL LIABILTY TOWARDS THE COMPLAINANT The main issue which arises for consideration is whether the cheques in question were issued for the discharge of the legal liability or not. The Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the cheques were issued for the purpose of security and as such no legal liability exists in favour of the complainant. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant had argued that the cheques were issued for discharging their partial liability. It is to be seen that the complainant had placed on record the invoices vide Ex. CW/1/ & Ex. CW1/2 dated 17.06.2015 and 18.06.2015, which has been opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused on the ground that the same are loose sheets and reliance cannot be placed upon the invoices placed on record by the complainant and has placed the reliance on L.K. Advani & Ors v. CBI (supra). However, judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the documents placed by the complainant are not books of account rather the invoices as Ex. CW1/1 and Ex. CW1/2.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. A.K. Srivastava vs Cbi (Ac­I) on 15 March, 2014

9. As to when a charge is required to be framed against an accused, In L. K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1997 III AD (Delhi) 53, Hon'ble High Court observed as under:­ "(52). it is manifest from above that the charges can be framed against an accused person only in those discerning, few cases where the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has shown a prima facie case against the accused and there is evidence before the Court which is capable of being converted into legal evidence later on during the subsequent proceedings after the framing of the charge.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cbi vs B. M. Sethi Etc. (Safdarjung C.G.H.S) on 13 October, 2025

In L.K. Advani's case (supra), the object of criminal conspiracy, amongst accused persons, involved in said case was to receive unaccounted money and to disburse the same amongst themselves, friends, close relations and amongst different persons including public servants and political leaders. For achieving said aim, one of the accused lobbied with different public servants and governments organisations in the Power and Steel Sectors of Government of India for the purpose of pursuing of award of various contracts to different foreign bidders with the motive of getting illegal kickbacks from them. Same is not the situation here. So, said case law did not help the cause of Accused Maha Nand Sharma (A-4).
Delhi District Court Cites 208 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next